





GPO 













































E. 319 . 

■ n 




7BG3 




W as W ashington 


Freemason? 



By CHARLES BLANCHARD. D. D. 


President, Wheaton College; President, National 
Christian Association; President, Illinois Sab¬ 
bath Association; Member, National 
Geographical Society, etc. 


I have for years been intending to pre¬ 
sent with some care the relation of George 
Washington, General of the Colonial 
Armies during the Revolutionary War, 
and first President of the United States, 
to Freemasonry. I do not think that 
this duty should be longer delayed, and 
will now attempt as carefully as I can to 
discuss this question, which, from one 
point of view, is unimportant, but from 
another is of the highest interest to all 
thinking people. 

Washington was a slave-owner, he 
1 1 rank wine, when he was angry he 
swore; and other defects of character 
are known to have belonged to him as 
a man. There are spots on the sun. We 
do not mention these things in the way 
of criticism. lie was, we think, easily 


i 



WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


the greatest of all Americans, but we 
note these facts. If he had been a Free¬ 
mason, it would not prove that Ma¬ 
sonry is a good thing. If he was not 
a Freemason, it would not prove that 
organization to be an evil institution. 
But the constant advertising of “ Wash¬ 
ington as a Freemason,” which is in¬ 
creasingly characteristic of our times, 
demands an intelligent and thorough 
treatment of this question. To begin 
with, it is admitted: 

1. That when he was a young man, 
before he had come of age, he was “en¬ 
tered.” Attaining his majority, he was 
“passed,” and “raised” as a Blue 
Lodge Mason. 

2. That he never renounced and de¬ 
nounced Freemasonry by name, but that 
he died in nominal connection with the 
order. 

3. That under the Masonic theory 
that a man once a Mason is always a 
Mason, the question must be answered 
in the affirmative: if it be true that a 
man who has been initiated into the 
Masonic lodge can never cancel that re¬ 
lation, President Washington was a 
Freemason. 

It is, however, affirmed: 

1. That during his whole life he 
showed an indifference to the Masonic 
lodge which intimated, if it did not 
2 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


prove, that lie was not in sympathy with 
the institution and desired to have noth¬ 
ing to do with it. 

2. That he never in any way, dur¬ 
ing his whole life, showed himself a 
loyal member of that organization. 



GEORGE WASHINGTON 


3. That during the last thirty years 
of his life he did not attend the lodges. 

4. That in view of these facts, the 
question must be answered in the nega¬ 
tive: Washington was not a Freemason. 









WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


It would be as correct to call Paul the 
Apostle, at the end of his long and mag¬ 
nificent Christian ministry, a persecut¬ 
ing Jew, as to call General Washington 
a Freemason. It would be as proper to 
call a man who had married a wife, lived 
with her for a year, and then deserted 
her, not visiting her more than once or 
twice in thirty years , and then only at 
her urgent entreaty, and with no evident 
affection, a loyal husband, as to call Gen¬ 
eral Washington a loyal Freemason. 

The fact is that men may change; 
sinners may repent, and a man may 
abandon Freemasonry as he may any 
other sin into which he has been be¬ 
trayed. And if the facts are that Wash¬ 
ington left the lodge, it is a perversion 
of the truth, and a wrong to a good 
man’s memory, to speak as if he had not 
done so. 

AN ARGUMENT FROM OMISSION. 

An argument of this sort is to be 
handled with extreme care. No one 
could claim that it is positive evidence. 
At'the same time it has some weight, 
and it is proper that it should be men¬ 
tioned in cases where it has an apparent 
bearing. 

Washington was or was not a loyal 
Mason. If he was one, we should natur¬ 
ally expect to find a mention of that fact 
by the authors who in short or longer 


4 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


fashion give an account of his life. 
Washington was not an unimportant 
man. He is the most commanding figure 
in American history to this day, and 
there is no reason to suppose that 
any other person will ever occupy his 
position. His personal appearance, his 
mental qualities, his moral characteris¬ 
tics, his frontier life, his car££r as a 
General, his execution of fhe office of 
President of the United States, his do¬ 
mestic life, his opinion on the questions 
of his day—all have been subjected to a 
continuous and rigid scrutiny. His let¬ 
ters have been carefully collected, and 
we have a right to assume that most of 
the things in which he was interested 
have been brought before the public in 
these various ways. 

But when we come to the present 
question there is one most remarkable 
fact that will waken the instant atten¬ 
tion of every thoughtful student. Al¬ 
most no mention whatever of Free¬ 
masonry is made in connection with 
Washington, except by Freemasons. The 
article on Washington in Chamber’s 
Encyclopaedia does not mention Free¬ 
masonry. The article in Britannica does 
not name Freemasonry. The American 
Encyclopaedia preserves this same re¬ 
markable silence. Two smaller encyclo¬ 
paedias that I have examined—intended 
for students in academies and colleges 

5 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

—are equally destitue of any mention of 
Washington’s Freemasonry. 

I find in Irving’s Life of Washington, 
published 1855-1859, a statement that 
the Masons were at his funeral, and had 
some small part in it; but there is no 
record of any Masonic ceremonies, nor 
any intimation that he was clearly iden¬ 
tified with that order. A Georgetown, 
Maryland, newspaper of that time, 
dated December 20, 1799, gives 

the fullest account of his funeral of 
which I have any knowledge, but makes 
no mention of any Masonic ceremonies. 
The fact is stated that the Masons were 
present, that they marched in the pro¬ 
cession; but there is no record of any 
Masonic ceremonies of any kind what¬ 
ever. 

This monotony of silence is also found 
in Dr. John Lord’s great lecture on 
Washington. Dr. Lord was probably 
the most distinguished historical lectur¬ 
er of our day. Certainly he is most 
widely known of all American historical 
lecturers. He was a popular lecturer in 
intention and in fact. He wrote for 
the common people; and we find in his 
great series, ‘ ‘ The Beacon Lights of His¬ 
tory,” most of the facts connected with 
great men and their times which would 
impress the average mind. He gives a 
long lecture on the life of Washington. 
He speaks of his age, his companions, 
6 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

his home relations, his social customs, 
and quite in detail as to his career as 
a soldier and statesman. The word Free¬ 
masonry does not occur in this lecture 
anywhere. 

A'ow I admit that this does not prove 
that Washington was not a Freemason; 
but I claim that it is a fact of the first 
importance, and those who wish to ad¬ 
vertise Washington as a Mason should 
furnish some possible explanation of this 
almost universal silence. 

I have not been able to go at length 
through Marshall’s Life of Washington, 
but, glancing over it as thoroughly as 
1 have been able to do, I find no men¬ 
tion of Masonry here. Mr. Marshall was 
an almost lifelong friend of Washington. 
It is probable that he knew him as well 
as any other living man. His personal 
testimony is given later in this writing. 
I stop here to say that so far as I have 
been able to study the life of Washing¬ 
ton which he w’rote, it is like the ency¬ 
clopedias, like Dr. Lord’s lecture, like 
the history of Irving— that is to say, 
Washington is not represented as a Ma¬ 
son. 

1 wish to be clearly understood, there¬ 
fore I repeat what I have already sev¬ 
eral times said—that I do not claim that 
these omissions prove Washington not to 
have been a loyal Mason. I affirm that 
all the evidence which they furnish. 


7 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

however, looks in that direction; and 
those who wish to bolster up Free¬ 
masonry by using the name of Washing¬ 
ton, are under obligation to explain this 
very important fact. 

MASONIC RECORDS UNRELIABLE. 

In discussing this thesis I desire to 
remark that we cannot rely on the state¬ 
ments of Masons in this connection, with¬ 
out corroborating proofs; for 

1. They are interested parties. They 
have an interest in claiming Washing¬ 
ton as a Freemason. They use him as a 
decoy to draw young men into their or¬ 
der. 

2. Masonic claims respecting such 
matters have been repeatedly proved 
untrue. Masonic orators and writers, 
either by mistake or deliberate intention, 
have more than once uttered and pub¬ 
lished falsehoods respecting such mat¬ 
ters. They have claimed persons who 
never belonged to the lodge at all, as 
lifelong members; and they have denied 
the lodge membership of persons who 
were not in good reputation. 

For example, they have denied that 
Benedict Arnold was a member of the 
order, and have claimed Lincoln as a 
Freemason. Yet Lincoln was never a 
member of the lodge at all; and Bene¬ 
dict Arnold is known by all Masonic 
students to have been a lodgeman, and 
8 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


he is believed by many to have escaped 
the penalties of his treason because he 
was a Freemason. 

A certain Robert G. Scott, Esq., was 
reported in the Boston Daily Evening 
Transcript to have declared that fifty 
at least of those who signed the Declar¬ 
ation of Independence were Masons, and 
that every Major-General of the Revolu¬ 
tionary Army was a Mason, save one, 
and that one was Benedict Arnold. He 
made this statement first in 1846. It 
was repeated by Grand Master B. B. 
French at the laying of the corner¬ 
stone of the Washington Monument, 
July 4th, 1848. Mr. Scott himself was 
Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge 
of Virginia. He afterward repeated the 
above statement on February 22d, 1850, 
saying that “the historian informs us,” 
etc. Yet when he was asked who this 
historian was, and what authority he 
had for the statement, he did not reply. 

In my own town, on one occasion, 
there was published an account of the 
installation of officers in the Royal Arch 
Chapter which at that time existed 
here in Wheaton. Speaking with one of 
the gentlemen who was declared to have 
been installed on that occasion, he re¬ 
plied, “I do not know what you mean. 
I was not at that meeting, and of course 
was not installed.” Now, to be sure, 
Freemasons may put any statement into 
o 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


their records that they choose. If they 
are willing to record a falsehood for 
“the good of the order,” they can do 
so; and it may be difficult to disprove 
the statement, especially after some time 
has elapsed. 

The members of a Masonic lodge pub¬ 
lished in Boston, five hundred miles 
away from Richmond, Va., where he 
lived, a statement in praise of Masonry, 
alleged to have been made by Chief Jus¬ 
tice Marshall. They were unwise enough 
to print this statement while Mr. Mar¬ 
shall was still alive; and although it 
might never have come to his notice 
in that day of stage-coaches, it did, and 
he explicitly denied that he had 
ever made any such remark. If they had 
waited until after he was dead; or if 
his attention had never been called to 
the matter, he would to-day be record¬ 
ed as an advocate and defender of Free¬ 
masonry, and it would be impossible to 
prove that this claim was untrue. 

On October 14, 1830, the cornerstone 
of the Masonic Temple in Boston was 
laid, and an account of the proceedings 
was published in the Boston Masonic 
Mirror of October 23. On the plate 
deposited in the cavity of the stone it 
was engraved that said stone was laid 
in the presence of the executive officers 
of the City and State—Andrew Jack- 
10 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


son, President of the United States; 
Levi Lincoln, Governor of Massachu¬ 
setts; Harrison Gray Otis, Mayor of 
Boston. This was a clear and explicit 
record intended to show that the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, the Governor 
of Massachusetts, and the Mayor of Bos¬ 
ton, were present at and participated in 
the exercises attending upon the laying 
of this cornerstone. This record was 
made and printed in October. On the 
22d of December following, a commit¬ 
tee asked Governor Lincoln whether this 
statement was true, and if he had been 
present on that occasion. Tie replied 
that he was not and never had been 
a Mason; and that he had not been 
present on the occasion ih question, but 
was at his home in the country; and 
that he had no other intelligence of the 
transaction than what he had derived 
from the papers. 

A similar inquiry being addressed to 
the Mayor of Boston, Mr. Harrison Gray 
Otis, he replied: “I did not participate 
in any manner in the ceremonies alluded 
to, nor was I present on the occasion.” 

It is unnecessary to multiply facts 
of this kind, yet one or two more instan- 
ces.may be cited. For example: A gentle¬ 
man recently intimated to me that my 
father in his early life had applied for 
admission to the Masonic lodge and had 
been rejected. Of course this would 
11 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

have had no bearing on his testimony 
against the lodges if it had been true. 
But lodgemen desire always to discredit 
those who are opposed to them, and to 
claim the patronage of those who they 
think will be a help to them. And 
while every argument my father used 
against Freemasonry would have been 
equally valid, whether he had applied 
for admission to the lodge and been re¬ 
fused, or not; yet it would have enabled 
the Masons to raise a laugh if the state¬ 
ment had been true. The gentleman 
who said this to me is comparatively a 
newcomer in our towrn. He knew noth¬ 
ing of the matter, except what he had 
been told. But some one, somewhere, 
had evidently, or apparently, told him 
that President Jonathan Blanchard was 
blackballed when he applied to the Ma¬ 
sonic lodge. This statement, like that 
one engraved on the plate put'into the 
cornerstone of the Boston Masonic Tem¬ 
ple, and like the statement attributed to 
Chief Justice Marshall, and the claims 
respecting Abraham Lincoln and Bene¬ 
dict Arnold, was a falsehood. I repeat, 
that the fact that the Masonic lodge 
is interested in the testimony which it 
gives on such subjects; and the fact 
that its records have been repeatedly 
shown to be untrue, make it impossible 
for a thinking man to accept uncorro¬ 
borated testimony of Freemasons on the 
12 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

question respecting General Washing¬ 
ton’s membership. 

THE MASONS DILIGENTLY SOUGHT TO SE¬ 
CURE SOME NOTICE FROM GENERAL 
WASHINGTON. 

The book entitled, “Washington and 
His Masonic Compeers, ’ ’ by Sidney Hay¬ 
den, Past Grand Master of Rural Amity 
Lodge, No. 70, of Pennsylvania, publish¬ 
ed by the Masonic Publishing & Manu¬ 
facturing Co., in 1868, at 432 Broome 
street, New York, is the fullest Masonic 
statement respecting Washington’s lodge 
relations of which I have any knowledge. 
As will be seen from the title, it is 
strictly a Masonic publication, written 
by. a Freemason, published and sold by 
Freemasons. 

Now this book gives instance after 
instance where lodge organizations 
sought to secure from Washington some 
sort of recognition. It mentions case 
after case where some Freemason, writ¬ 
ing a book for Masons, sought to secure 
from General Washingon the privilege 
of dedication, or.some word or hint that 
would lead young men to believe that 
Washington was an earnest Freemason. 
But it seems that Washington did not 
respond to these advances in a satisfac¬ 
tory manner. Usually he did not re¬ 
spond at all, and when he did he seem- 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

ed to get rid of the whole subject as 
quietly and easily as possible. 

For example: On page 47 of this book 
Hayden says that the Virginia Free¬ 
masons called a conference, which rec¬ 
ommended George Washington as the 
proper person to be elected the first 
independent Grand Master of Virginia. 
He says that AVashington at that time 
had held no official position in Masonry 
and modestly declined the intended 
honor. On pages 56 and following, 
Hayden records that there was quite 
an extended discussion among the Ma¬ 
sons of this country in regard to form¬ 
ing a National Masonic Union, and hav¬ 
ing a National Grand Master, or a Grand 
Master General. He says that they all 
agreed that they wished General AVask- 
ington to occupy this position. But the 
outcome of the whole matter was that 
Washington was not elected. The Na¬ 
tional Union was not created, and there 
is no hint in the whole narrative that 
General AVashington took the slightest 
. interest in the subject. 

Among the facts which are very im¬ 
portant in this connection is the one 
that some Freemasons had a Masonic 
medal struck, in 1797, which they call¬ 
ed the Washington Masonic Medal. 
Hayden prints this on page 70. On 
one side of this medal we have the 
words, “G. Washington, President, 


14 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


1797, ” with a bust in the center. On 
the obverse, the words, “Amor, Honor 
et Justieia, ” and below, the letters, “G. 
\Y., <J. G. M.,” standing for, George 
Washington, General Grand Master. In 
the center of the obverse are the Ma¬ 
sonic emblems—the two pillars, the 
square and compass, the three candles, 
tlie plumb, the level, the mallet, the 
Bible, the G., etc. 

Is not this a most remarkable thing? 
.The Freemasons wanted a national gov¬ 
erning Masonic body. They wanted 
Washington to be at the head of it, to 
be called General Grand Master. The 
Masonic bodies in one colony correspond¬ 
ed with the Masonic bodies in other col¬ 
onies, and the discussion went on for 
months, if not for years. The outcome 
of the matter is that no such body is 
formed; General Washington never oc¬ 
cupies any such position, and the whole 
matter should be allowed to die. In¬ 
stead of that, what do we find? A medal 
is struck, representing that the organi¬ 
zation has been formed; that Washing¬ 
ton has occupied the position. And this 
medal is handed down to coming ages as 
a hit of historic evidence concerning that 
matter—a falsehood put into bronze to 
deceive all after generations that should 
trust to its lying intimations. I do not 
know in history of another instance like 
this. 


15 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


On page 72 of his book Hayden says 
that a certain Masonic lodge resolved 
that ‘ ‘ In case our beloved and illustrious 
brother, General Washington, permit a 
certain publication to be dedicated to 
him, that His Excellency’s arms be pre¬ 
fixed to the dedication.” At a meeting 
of the Grand Lodge in December it 
was further resolved that a certain Dr. 
Smith’s Masonic sermon and prayer, 
which had been delivered in the pres¬ 
ence of Washington, should also be pub¬ 
lished in the work. The book was pub¬ 
lished in 1783. It was dedicated to 
Washington, but his coat-of-arms was 
not inserted. This looks as if they had 
asked for his consent, but he had de¬ 
clined ; and that they had therefore 
published the dedication, but omitted 
the coat-of-arms, which they would nec¬ 
essarily secure from him, or at least 
would not dare to print without his con¬ 
sent. 

When Washington was about to visit 
Newport, lb I., a Masonic lodge thought 
of voting him an address, supposing him 
to be the Grand Master of North Amer¬ 
ica; but they found that he was not 
even Master of a local lodge, and they 
therefore laid aside the address. 

Some French Freemasons made a Ma¬ 
sonic sash and apron, and sent them 
to Washington. He received them civ¬ 
illy, but says in his letter not a single 
16 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

word in favor of Freemasonry. This 
letter is found on pages 84 and 85 of 
Hayden’s bo^k. 

On pages 86 and 87 it is alleged that 
Washington visited a lodge at Pough¬ 
keepsie, N. Y., and that after dinner 
an address was presented to him; but 
the book says there is no record of Wash¬ 
ington’s reply. 

I cannot, in this letter, go through 
the whole book, but any one who chooses 
to do so will find that the lodges and 
lodgemen persecuted Washington stead¬ 
ily with attentions particularly adapted 
to secure some sort of Masonic recogni¬ 
tion; and that he steadily refused tc 
furnish them with the advertising they 
desired. Three times, at least, Masonic 
publications were dedicated to him; but 
we do not find that in any case he even 
acknowledged the dedication. 

This constant reticence on the part of 
Washington would be important in any 
event, but it is decisive as to his 
attitude when taken in connection with 
the other facts which are yet to be 
stated. Washington was a loyal Free¬ 
mason, or he was not. If he was a 
lodgeman, he should have proved it by 
what he did. Here are the lodges for 
about forty years trying to get the priv¬ 
ilege of receiving Washington, of elect¬ 
ing Washington to something or other, 
or to get letters from Washington 

17 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

which should be useful as advertising 
matter for the order; but Washington 
does not seem to respond. He had over¬ 
abundant opportunity, but still he held 
back. Why did he do so ? There is just 
one explanation, and that is, that he 
was not a Mason in any true and sub¬ 
stantial sense of that word. 

WASHINGTON'S DIRECT TESTIMONY. 

It has already been noted that Wash¬ 
ington was entered in the Masonic 
lodge before he was twenty-one years 
of age. He lived to be sixty-eight years 
oid. This would give him forty-seven 
years in which to show his disposition 
toward the lodge. 

He was married in January of 1759, 
and as Hayden says, for the next fif¬ 
teen years lived in domestic retirement, 
interrupted only by his public duties 
as member of the Colonial Assembly, in 
which body he continued his seat. Now 
Hayden says (page 36), “We look in 
vain for a record of Washington's Ma¬ 
sonic life during that time, as few of 
the annals of Masonry in Virginia dur¬ 
ing those years exist." As this is the 
record of a Masonic author, published by 
Freemasons for the good of the order, 
we may accept it as true. For fifteen 
years, then, after he was married, the 
Masons do not know that Washington 
had anything to do with the lodges. 
Taking these fifteen years from the 
18 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


forty-seven, would leave thirty-two years 
in which he might show what he thought 
about the Masonic lodge. 

After these fifteen years were ended, 
he became General of the Armies of the 
American Colonies, and spent practically 
seven years in the field. In fact, Wash¬ 
ington is said to have visited Mount Ver¬ 
non only once during the entire seven 
years of the struggle. 

Hayden says that there were a num¬ 
ber of army lodges organized and in 
operation during this time; and it is 
noticeable how often he mentions the 
fact that he does not know about Gen¬ 
eral Washington’s attending them at all. 
I do not remember that he gives a sin¬ 
gle instance in which he declares that 
there is a record of Washington’s at¬ 
tendance. He says several times that 
Washington went frequently, but does 
uot tell us when he went, nor where. 

For example: On page 45 Hayden 
says, speaking of the American Union 
lodge, which was organized by the 
troops of which Washington had com¬ 
mand, that “his military duties did not 
permit of his attendance on its meet¬ 
ings during the time the army was en¬ 
camped around Boston; but subsequent¬ 
ly he often joined his Masonic brethren 
within its walls, and ever encouraged 
among its members, both by precept and 
example, a love of Masonry.” 

19 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


It is difficult to see why Washington 
did not have opportunity to attend the 
military lodge during the siege of Bos¬ 
ton as much as at any other time during 
the Revolutionary War. Certainly the 
lodge meetings could have been held 
more easily then than when our poor 
army was being chased back and forth 
in New Jersey and New York. But 
Hayden says he was too busy to come 
at that time; that he often went later 
—but when and where we do not learn. 

On page 48, he says, “Masonic tra¬ 
ditions state that military lodges were 
held in the camp at Valley Forge, which 
Washington often attended; but the loss 
of all records prevents us from verify¬ 
ing these statements. ’ 1 

On page 53, Hayden says that 
‘ ‘ Simon Greenleaf, late Past Grand Mas¬ 
ter of Maine, said he had often heard 
his father mention Washington’s visits 
to a certain lodge while Commander-in- 
Chief, and the high gratification these 
gave to the officers and members, espe- 
cially as he went without ceremony, as 
a private brother.” This is about the 
nearest to evidence that we get. A Free¬ 
mason says that his father told him that 
Washington went to a certain military 
lodge, and that the Masons were glad 
to have him come, especially since he 
came as a private brother.* 

•Rev. Ezra Styles Ely, D. D., editor of a reltg 
20 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


On page 75, Hayden reports that the 
Masonic records and the testimony of 
Washington’s compeers show that he 
countenanced the establishment and en¬ 
couraged the labors of the Masonic 
lodges. He does not say what records. 
In several instances, as already men¬ 
tioned, he says there are none; and on 
this very page he goes on to say, ;< The 
cares of his high office engrossed too much 
of his time to admit of his engaging in 
the duties of the chair. Yet he found fre¬ 
quent opportunities to visit these lodges, 
and thought it no degradation of his dig¬ 
nity to stand there on a level with his 
brethren.” It is a little difficult to see 
why Washington could not act as Wor¬ 
shipful Master, if he took time to come 
to the meetings. His whole life-history 
shows that he was ready to assume re¬ 
sponsibility in any cause where his heart 
and mind were engaged. But the Ma- 


ior.s newspaper called The Philadelphian, stated 
editorially, in the issue of that paper dated July 
23, 1830, the views of General Washington as ex¬ 
pressed to his aide-de-camp, Jonathan Trumbull, 
later (1797-1809) Governor of Connecticut. The 
statement follows: 

■•Hitherto I have neither advocated nor opposed 
Masonry, unless it be in the relation of a conver¬ 
sation which passed between General Washington 
and Governor Jonathan Trumbull, which the latter 
more than once repeated to my father. The latter, 
when aide-de-camp to the former, asked him if he 
would advise him to become a Mason. General 
Washington replied ‘that Masonry was a benevolent 
institution, which might be employed for the best 
or worst of purposes ; but that for the most part 
it was merely child’s play, and ho could not give 
him any advice on the subject.’ ” 

21 



WAS WASHINGTON A FttEEMASON V 


sonic author says he was too much en¬ 
grossed in his duties to act as Master, 
etc. 

On pages 82 and 83, Hayden says that 
the records of La Fayette’s being made 
a Mason are lost, but that traditions say 
it was at Morristown, at Newburgh, at 
Albany, and perhaps at other places, 
that he received his degrees, and even 
that Washington presided as Master at 
some of these occasions. He goes on to 
say that he is unable to verify these tra¬ 
ditions, but entertains no doubt that the 
Masonic tie existed between Washington 
and La Fayette, and that it was strongly 
felt. 

On page 85 he says again that many 
military lodges existed in the army, but 
that the records of most of them are 
lost. The use of the word “most” here 
is peculiar. We are reading a life of 
Washington and his Masonic compeers. 
The author is trying to show that Wash¬ 
ington was a Freemason. He affirms re¬ 
peatedly that Washington permitted, 
favored the organization of military Ma¬ 
sonic organizations, and attended them: 
but he does not give us, in the whole 
work, so far as I have been able to see, 
a single instance in which the records of 
the military lodges mention him' as a 
Freemason. Why not say, then, “Though 
many military lodges existed in the 
army, yet the records are lost. And even 
22 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON V 

if we had them, we could not affirm that 
they would show any connection of 
Washington with the organization.” 

1 think it fair to say, in view of this 
evidence, given by a freemason to Free¬ 
masons, that Washington was not 
an enthusiastic Mason during the pe¬ 
riod of his service as General of the 
Armies of the American Colonies. And if 
this is a fair inference from the facts 
in the case, we must take seven years 
more from the thirty-two years which 
we had remaining. This would leave 
twenty-live years during which he might 
have been an enthusiastic Mason; might 
have frequently attended the Masonic 
lodges, and might frequently have worn 
the apron and sash which he is declared 
by Masons to have worn. As a fair 
sample of the many Masonic statements 
in regard to this matter, I give only one. 
It would be easy to furnish others. 

Timothy Bigelow, in his Masonic 
eulogy of Washington, speaks of the 
frequent opportunities which he found 
to visit the lodge, and again of the 
lodge over which he presided for many 
years, and of which he died the Mas¬ 
ter—“constant and punctual in his at- 
tendanqe, scrupulous in his observance 
of the regulations of the lodge, he dis¬ 
charged the duties of the chair with un¬ 
common dignity, and intelligence in all 
the mysteries of our rites. We see be- 


23 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


fore us the very attire which he often 
wore as a Mason.” 

A Boston publication entitled, “The 
Masonic Character and Correspondence 
of General Washington,” among other 
things says, “Washington died while 
holding one of the most responsible 
offices in the gift of his brethren, and 
while a member of the Grand Lodge of 
his own State. He was borne to the 
grave by the brethren of the lodge of 
which he had been previously Master. 
At the time of his death Washington was 
Master of Alexandria lodge. He en¬ 
couraged the organization of lodges in 
his own army, at the meetings of which 
he was often present, and in which he 
often officiated,” etc., etc. 

Now it is unquestioned that Washing¬ 
ton, in the ye ar 1798, sent a letter to 
Rev. Snyder, who resided at Freder- 
iektown, in Maryland, in which he says: 
“. . . . except to correct an error 

which you have run into, of my pre¬ 
siding over the English lodges in this 
country. The fact is that I preside over 
none, nor have T been in one except 
once or twice within the last thirty 
years.” If this statement is to be ac¬ 
cepted as true—and it is Washington’s 
own—it seems to close up the matter. 

Hayden says that there is no evidence 
to show that Washington had anything 
to do with Freemasonry for fifteen 

24 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


years after lie was married. He says 
that Washington allowed military lodges 
to be organized in the army, and that 
he at times attended them; but he says 
he learns this only by tradition—that 
there are no records; and he says that 
Washington had no official position in 
these lodges because he was too busy. 
This takes out from our possible forty- 
seven years of earnest Masonic living, 
fifteen years plus seven years. And the 
year before Washington dies he himself 
says that the gentleman who supposed he 
was presiding over the English lodges in 
this country was mistaken; that he did 
not preside over any, and that he had 
not been in one more than once or 
twice for thirty years. This would 
cover the whole twenty-five years re¬ 
maining, with five years to spare. The 
next year, 1799, Washington died, and 
of course his opportunities to show 
friendship for the Masonic order were 
ended so far as this life is concerned. 

The letter of Washington to Mr. Sny¬ 
der is unquestionably authentic. It 
was found in his letter-book, and is 
^ 1 printed by Mr. Sparks among the letters 
* of Washington. Of course, Hayden had 
to say something about it. What he does 
say is as follows: 

“The first letter of General Washing¬ 
ton to Mr. Snyder has been often quoted, 
in some of its parts, in an attempt to 

25 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON V 


show that Washington disclaimed all 
connection with Masonry during his ma¬ 
ture and latter years. His statement, 
that ‘he presided over none of the Eng¬ 
lish lodges of this country, nor had been 
in one more than once or twice in the 
last thirty years,’ is given as if the qual¬ 
ifying designation of English lodges 
was not there written and fully meant 
by him. It is well known, as any fact 
in history, that previous to the Revolu¬ 
tion all regular lodges of Masons in this 
country derived their authority, either 
directly or indirectly, from one of the 
Grand Lodges of Great Britain, and the 
Masonry in this country was known as 
English Masonry, in contradistinction to 
some of the existing systems of Conti¬ 
nental Europe. When the independence 
of the United States was fully con¬ 
firmed, Masonry, as an institution, con¬ 
formed its organizations and govern¬ 
ment to the new existing political state 
of the country; and its lodges, with but 
few exceptions, relinquished all depend¬ 
ence on their English progenitor and 
head. American lodges, therefore, in 
1798, were as distinct from English 
lodges as the independent States were 
from their former colonial dependence, 
except in a few instances, where indi¬ 
vidual lodges, like St. Andrew’s in Bos¬ 
ton, still continued their fealty to the 
foreign Grand Lodge, to which they 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


owed their birth, and declined to ac¬ 
knowledge the supremacy or legitimacy 
of any independent American Grand 
Lodge. Some of these lodges thus con¬ 
tinued until after the commencement of 
the present century. 

“There were also many lodges in 
America, while the Provincial Grand 
Lodge was in vogue here, which had 
their warrants from the Grand Lodges 
of England direct, and were never sub¬ 
ject to the government of the American 
Provincial Grand Bodies; and there 
were other English Military Lodges in 
this country, both during the Revolution 
and previous to it, which had no connec¬ 
tion with the Provincial Grand Lodges 
in America, except in owing a common 
allegiance to the English Grand Easts, 
from which they sprung. In which of 
these Washington may ‘once or twice’ 
have been, we have no record to deter¬ 
mine, while we have abundant records 
to show that he often met with his Amer¬ 
ican brethren in their lodges, and was 
to the close of his life an affiliated mem¬ 
ber, and as such received Masonic bu¬ 
rial at their hands.” 

We are dealing with a Masonic writer 
here—let us be careful. According to 
Hayden, when did Freemasonry in the 
United States become independent from 
Great Britain ? Mr. Hayden says, 
“When the independence of the United 


27 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

States was fully confirmed, Masonry as 
an institution conformed its organiza¬ 
tions and government to the new exist¬ 
ing political state of the country; and 
its lodges with few exceptions relinquin- 
ished all dependence on their English 
progenitor and head.” When was the 
independence of the United States fully 
confirmed? Evidently in 1783, when the 
treaty of peace was signed between our 
country and the motherland. From 1783 
to 1798, when Washington wrote the 
Snyder letter, how many years were 
there? It is a case in simple subtrac¬ 
tion. There were fifteen. Now Hayden 
tells us that all the lodges of our coun¬ 
try were English until 1783; that in 
1783 most of the lodges in our country 
became American; that a few remained 
English. And he says that Washington, 
by the use of the term “English lodges,” 
means to affirm that he had not been in 
one of these English lodges for the last 
thirty years. But Hayden goes on to 
say—“We have abundant records to 
show that he often met with his Ameri¬ 
can brethren in their lodges, and was 
to the close of his life an affiliated mem¬ 
ber, and as such received Masonic bu¬ 
rial at their hands.” 

See where Mr. Hayden puts us. At 
the time when Washington wrote this 
letter there had been American lodges 
in this country for only about fifteen 
28 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


years. Before that date all the lodges 
were English. Now, Washington says, 
“I preside over no English lodge, nor 
have I been in one more than once or 
twice for the last thirty years.” That 
would include the last fifteen years be¬ 
fore the American lodges were formed. 
During those fifteen years—that is, from 
1768 to 1783—he did not attend the 
lodges, but possibly was in them once or 
twice. In 1783 these English lodges 
which he had not attended for fifteen 
years became American; and Hayden 
says that Washington, who had not at¬ 
tended the lodges for fifteen years pre¬ 
ceding, now began to run after them. 

Observe again, Mr. Hayden says, “We 
have abundant records,” to show this. 
But he does not tell us where 
these records are found. “We have 
abundant records.” He gives us quite 
a number of letters, which will be ex¬ 
amined later. Some of these are prob¬ 
ably genuine; others of them are almost 
certainly forged. But these letters do 
not declare that Washington attended 
the American lodges. They show that 
the Masons were after him; that they 
wished to get something in writing from 
him. And even if the letters were gen¬ 
uine—which we cannot admit—they 
would not prove what Hayden affirms. 
Where then are his records, which 
“abundantly prove” that Washington 

29 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

attended the American lodges? There 
are no such records, so far as we know. 

Mr. Hayden says that Washington 
did not go to the lodges for fifteen years 
after he was married. Of course 
these would be the English lodges. He 
affirms that he has no records to show 
that he went to the military lodges dur¬ 
ing the war for independence. He says 
(page 130) : “No records are known to 
exist which contains any account of Ma¬ 
sonic intercourse of Washington with 
his Masonic brethren in New York while 
he resided there as President; nor with 
the fraternity in New England during 
his visit in 1789.” On page 144, after 
a letter which he alleges Washington 
wrote to the Masons of Pennsylvania, he 
says, “Washington’s residence was at 
that time in Philadelphia; and it was at 
the presidential mansion in that city that 
this address was presented. We know 
not that while there during his presi¬ 
dency he participated in the ritualistic 
labors of the lodge-room. But the Ma¬ 
sonic records of the fraternity in that 
city state that they were often made the 
almoners of his bounty to those in dis¬ 
tress. ’ ’ 

The lodges in New York and Phila¬ 
delphia were at this time, according to 
Hayden, American lodges. He says, 
“We have abundant records to show 
that Washington attended the American 


so 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON V 


lodges during the last thirty years of 
his life, though he did not attend the 
English lodges.” But there were no 
American lodges until fifteen or sixteen 
years before he died, and Hayden says 
he has no record to show that he at¬ 
tended the American lodges while he 
lived in New York, no records to show 
that he attended these American lodges 
while living in Philadelphia; and he 
does not name any records which show 
that he attended the American lodges 
anywhere. 

We dismiss this whole matter by call¬ 
ing attention to the fact that in the 
second letter to Mr. Snyder, Washing¬ 
ton omits the adjective “English,” 
when continuing the discussion of the 
preceding letter. In this second letter 
Washington uses the expression, “lodges 
of Freemasonry in this country,” and 
he is referring to the previous letter, 
which he thinks Mr. Snyder misunder¬ 
stood somewhat. So that the “English 
lodges” of letter number one seem to 
have been the “lodges of Freemasonry 
in this country” of letter number two. 
Both these letters are dated—as already 
stated above-—and are found in the col¬ 
lected writings of Washington, and both 
of them are printed even by Mr. Hay¬ 
den. 

We claim that the evidence is over¬ 
whelming that Washington meant what 

31 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


he said—that he had nothing to do with 
Freemasonry except to reply in civil 
terms to the correspondence with which 
they persecuted him. 

Now, can any man say, in view of the 
facts here recorded, that Washington 
was a loyal Freemason? What kind of 
Freemason was he? No Masonic rec¬ 
ord at all for fifteen years, a scanty 
record for the seven years following, and 
his own statement that he had not at¬ 
tended a Masonic lodge more than once 
or twice for the last thirty years of his 
life. And all this while, Masonic writ¬ 
ers, Masonic local lodges, and Masonic 
grand lodges were following him up 
with every sort of invitation and op¬ 
portunity to record himself as an adher- 
ing and sympathetic Mason. 

FORGED LETTERS. 

In this connection it should be said 
that Masonic lives of Washington pub¬ 
lish a number of letters alleged to 
have been written by him to various 
Masonic bodies. Some of these letters 
do not say a single word on the sub¬ 
ject of Masonry, but simply acknowl¬ 
edge the courtesy which has been shown 
him by his correspondent or correspond¬ 
ents. Of this sort is the acknowledge¬ 
ment which he sent to the French mer¬ 
chants who sent him the Masonic sash 
and apron. He speaks of the ornaments 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


as elegant, but does not say a single 
word in favor of the Masonic Lodge, 
lie calls God the “Grand Architect of 
the Universe”—if this is a genuine let¬ 
ter, and we have reason to suppose that 
it is—and he uses the expression “broth¬ 
ers” in the last paragraph of his letter. 
This might be called an acknowledge¬ 
ment of his Masonic relations; I think 
it is fair to. say that it is. But there 
is no commendation of Masonry. This 
letter is found on pages 84 and 85 of 
Hayden’s book. 

On page 104 is a note replying to an 
invitation to dine with a Masonic 
lodge. He accepts the invitation, but 
says nothing at all about the order. The 
members of the lodge were neighbors 
and friends, and it would have been 
scarcely a fit occasion for him to take 
up the subject of Masonry, even had 
he been disposed so to do. 

But there are a few letters which are 
of another type. In these he speaks in 
favor of Masonry. One of these is 
found on pages 132 and 133 of Hay¬ 
den’s book. In this letter Washington 
is reported as saying that he is “per¬ 
suaded that a just application of the 
principles on which the Masonic frater¬ 
nity is founded, must be productive of 
purity, virtue and public prosperity. I 
shall always be happy to advance the 
interests of the society, and to be con- 

33 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


sidered by them as a deserving brother.” 
This was said to be in reply to a let¬ 
ter from a lodge written on August 17, 
1790, and Hayden says, 4 ‘It is the ear¬ 
liest presidential Masonic correspond¬ 
ence that exists on record.” 

In a letter which he is reported to 
have written to the Grand Master of 
the Grand Lodge of South Carolina, we 
find the words, “I recognize with pleas¬ 
ure my relation to the brethren of your 
society.” ITe does not name the Ma¬ 
sons at all, and this is the only recog¬ 
nition he gives of them in the letter— 
if indeed he wrote it. 

In a letter to the Masons of Penn¬ 
sylvania, recorded on page 144 of Hay¬ 
den, Washington is reported to have 
said. “I receive your kind congratula¬ 
tions with the purest sensations of fra¬ 
ternal affection.” This letter does not 
name the Masons, nor speak of Ma¬ 
sonic doctrine, ceremony, obligation, or 
penalty, nor of any other line of 
Masonry. It will, I think, be fair to 
say that these two classes of correspond¬ 
ence cover the whole ground of his al¬ 
leged Masonic correspondence. 

Governor Pitner of Pennsylvania, in 
or about the year 1837, made some un¬ 
favorable comments respecting secret 
orders, and declared that Washington 
was opposed to these organizations. A 
memorial came up from certain citizens 


34 


WAS WASHINGTON A B'REE MASON '{ 


of Pennsylvania, requesting the House 
of Representatives of that State to ask 
the Governor what authority he had 
for this statement. Governor Ritner, re- 



.JOSEPH RITNER. 


plying, says: “No occurrence of my 
life ever afforded me greater pleasure 
than that of being called upon officially 
to vindicate the memory of Washing-- 






WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


ton from the stigma of adhering to se¬ 
cret combinations.” He also says: “The 
name of Washington, which has become 
the watchword of liberty and of na¬ 
tional independence throughout the 
world, is degraded into the office of a 
Masonic ‘gull-trap’ at home.” This is 
vigorous language, and must either be 
justified by facts or admitted to be se¬ 
vere and unreasonable. 

Taking up the matter of Washing¬ 
ton’s letters to lodges, Governor Ritner 
says: 

1. “Three of them—namely, 
that to King David’s and the two 
to the Grand Lodge of Massachu¬ 
setts—are without date, a circum¬ 
stance wholly unprecedented in the 
correspondence of the writer, who 
above all other men was noted for 
attention to method and form in his 
writing. 

2. “Though General Washing¬ 
ton caused to be carefully copied, 
in books kept for that purpose, all 
his letters on every subject, no 
trace of the letters under consider¬ 
ation nor of any letters to any 
other Masonic body, can be found 
among the records of his corre¬ 
spondence. 

3. “The originals of none of 
these letters have been seen out of 
the lodge in open day, though the 

'36 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON V 


officers of at least the Grand Lodge 
. :>f Massachusetts have been pub¬ 
licly called upon to produce and 
submit them to the examination of 
Jared Sparks, Esq., who from his 
connection with the Washington 
correspondence is supposed to be 
the best qualified to ascertain their 
authenticity . 11 

But a committee in Boston, in 1833, 
wrote to Jared Sparks,* who was cus¬ 
todian of Washington’s papers, and 
author of his “Life and Letters,” in¬ 
quiring of him whether he had in his 
possession, or had seen, any letters in 
the handwriting of Washington, ad¬ 
dressed to any body of men calling 
themselves Freemasons. Mr. Sparks re¬ 
plied, under date of February 13, 1833: 

“I can only state that I have seen 
no letters of General Washington, of 
the kind described, nor have I received 
any communication on the subject, eith¬ 
er verbal or written.” 

This is most important testimony, for 
Jared Sparks was in a position to know 
probably better than any living man 
whether Washington had ever written 
any such letters as the Masons declare 
him to have sent to them. 

•Jared Sparks LL. D., American historian, editor 
of twelve octavo volumes of “The Writings of 
Uporqre W'ashincrton.” and of twelve volumes, oc¬ 
tavo, “Diplomatic Correspondence of the American 

37 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


In this connection it will be interest¬ 
ing to note what Chief Justice Marshall 
said, to whom reference was made in 
the early part of this discussion. A citi¬ 
zen of Massachusetts inquired of him 



JOHN MARSHALL. 


whether as biographer of Washington 
he knew of the existence of any authen¬ 
tic originals or copies of Washington’s 
correspondence with Masonic lodges. 

Revolution.” etc-.. Professor of History in and later 
President of Harvard University. 
















WAS WAM1LNU-I ON A 1< UbjCAi As»OM V 


The same person also inquired whether 
the Chief Justice had declared the in¬ 
stitution of Masonry to be “a jewel of 
the utmost value,” etc., etc. It will be 
remembered that some one in Boston had 
published the statement that Chief Jus¬ 
tice Marshall, who lived in Richmond, 
had recommended Masonry. From his 
reply, dated October 13, 1833, I take 
the following words: 

“I never did utter the words as¬ 
cribed to me, nor any other words 
importing the sentiment they con¬ 
vey. I never did say that Masonry 
is a jewel of the utmost value, and 
that only the pure in heart and 
life can appreciate it fully, and 
that in a free government it must, 
it v r ill be protected. 

<c The resolution als> inquires 
whether as a friend and biographer 
of Washington I have in pos¬ 
session or recollection any knowl¬ 
edge of any acts of General Wash¬ 
ington, or any documents written 
by him to Masonic bodies, approv¬ 
ing of Masonry. The papers of 
General Washington were returned 
many years past to my lamented 
friend, his nephew', and are now, I 
believe, in the possession of Mr. 
Sparks. I do not recollect ever to 
have heard him utter a syllable on 
the subject.” 

39 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


Continuing his report, Governor Rit- 
ner says: 

1. “In 1768 General Washing¬ 
ton had ceased regular attendance 
at the lodge. This is proved by 
his letter to Mr. Snyder. 

2. “So far back as about the 
year 1780 he had become convinced 
at least of the inutility of Freema¬ 
sonry, and called it ‘child’s play.’ 
This is established by his reply to 
Governor Trumbull. 

3. “We find that on September 
25tli, 1798, one year and three 
months before his death, his opin¬ 
ions on the subject of Freemason¬ 
ry remained unchanged from what 
they were thirty years before, when 
he was only thirty-six years old. 
This is established by his letter to 
Mr. Snyder. 

4. “Up to February, 1781, as 
appears by the records of King 
David’s lodge, and up to the 25th 
of September, 1798, as appears by 
his letter to Mr. Snyder, he had 
not been ‘Grand Master of North 
America, nor even Master of any 
particular lodge.’ 

5. “In 1781, as appears by the 
same record of King David’s lodge, 
it was not agreeable to him to be 
addressed even as^a private Mason. 

6. “All letters said to be writ- 

40 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON 

ten by Washington to lodges are 
spurious. This is rendered nearly 
certain 

(1) “By the non-production of 
the originals. 

(2) “By the absence of copies 
among the records of his letters. 

(3) “By their want of date. 

(4) “By the fact that his in¬ 
timate friend and biographer, Chief 

[ Justice Marshall—a Mason in his 
youth—says in his letter that he 
had never heard Washington utter 
a syllable on the subject; a matter 
nearly impossible if Washington 
had for years been engaged 
in writing laudatory letters to the 
Grand Lodges of South Carolina, 
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. ” 

Now, I hold no brief for Governor 
Ritner. A correspondent in speaking 
of Governor Ritner’s report said that 
•: Governor Ritner in his desire to make 
t a case has overstrained the argument in 
< several points; that he has questioned 
some letters which the writer believes 
to be authentic, etc. Regarding this 
matter, I shall only say that Governor 
Ritner was at the head of a great com- 
, monwealth. He made his report in re¬ 
sponse to a request from the State Legis¬ 
lature of his State. There were scores of 
capable men who were interested to 


41 



WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

show that he was in error in what he 
said. It is not to be presumed without 
evidence that he would be careless in 
his statements. Yet I do not vouch for 
them. I assume neither the honor nor 
the responsibility for his report. There 
is no question, however, but that it was 
a weighty document and is a weighty 
document. 

What is the reason that Washington, 
who was the most methodical of all 
Americans, who dated his letters and 
copied his letters, should have written 
a number of letters to Masonic lodges 
without any date, and should have fail¬ 
ed to have them put in his letter-books 
along with his other communications? 

How does it happen that two letters 
to an obscure clergyman of the name 
of Snyder, on the lodge-question, are 
inserted in the file, dated and copied, 
and printed, while letters to Masonic 
Grand Lodges and to prominent indi¬ 
vidual Masons are without any such au¬ 
thenticating marks? The fact is that 
a man must be extremely credulous to 
trust letters of that kind. If I should 
admit them all to be genuine—and from 
the facts in the case I find myself ut¬ 
terly unable to do this—I should still \ 
hold that they would not enable me to 
answer the question which I have plac¬ 
ed at the head of this discussion, in the 
affirmative. 


42 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


Washington was pre-eminently a gen¬ 
tleman. He was also a statesman. He did 
not run amuck among men. He re¬ 
plied civilly to all sorts and conditions 
of people, and if he had written these 
undated and uncopied leters, which 
never have found their way into the col¬ 
lected writings of Sparks, it would not 
to me show that he was a loyal Free¬ 
mason. It would indicate that he tried 
to be civil to some Freemasons who 
wanted him to pose as a loyal member 
of their order. But I cannot for my¬ 
self admit the letters. I believe for 
substance with Ritner. And there is 
one fact which has weight in this con¬ 
nection. 

It is proved that some Freemason or 
Freemasons forged a commendation of 
Masonry for Chief Justice Marshall, 
while he was yet alive. Fortunately he 
learned of the forgery, and nailed it to 
the counter for a lie. It is known that 
letters purporting to be Washington’s 
were forged while he was yet alive- 
that he made public protest, and re¬ 
quested that his letters should be plac¬ 
ed in the archives of the government 
as a permanent defense avainst the sen¬ 
timents falsely attributed to him.* 

♦Letters attributed to Washington were claimed 
to have been found in a small portmanteau left In 
the care of a servant of Washington's who it wa> 
said was captured b? the British. These letters 

43 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


It is known that Freemasons faJsely 
claim that men now living, who are 
opposed to their institutions, are hostile 
to it because they have been rejected 
when applying for membership. It is 
known that Freemasons have falsely 
claimed that all the Presidents of the 
United States, with the possible excep¬ 
tion of J. Q. Adams, and all the gen¬ 
erals of the Revolutionary army, except¬ 
ing Benedict Arnold, were members of 
their fraternity. 

In the face of a series of facts like 
these, is it natural to believe that these 
undated, uncopied letters, which have 
never found their way into the collected 
writings of Washington, are genuine? 

If Masons dared to forge a commen¬ 
dation of Masonry for Chief Justice 
Marshall, and published it while he was 
alive, it seems perfectly evident that 
they might be willing to do the same 
thing for General Washington after he 
was dead. And whether one agrees that 

were published, for political party purposes, near 
the close of Washington's presidency. 

in a letter to General Lee. dated May 25. 177K, 
Washington says of these letters attributed to him : 

“These letters are written with a great dpal 
of art. The intermixture of so many family cir¬ 
cumstances srives an air of plausibility. * * * 

Who the author of them is I know not. * * *” 

Washington wrote to the Secretary of State: 

* I hrfve thought it a duty that I owed 
to myself, to my country and to truth, now to 
detail the circumstances above recited : and to add 
that the letters herein described are a base for 
gerv. and that I never saw or heard of them until 
they appeared in print.” 


44 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


the proof of forgery is conclusive, or not, 
every reasonable man must admit that 
the Masonic correspondence which is 
attributed to Washington is liable to the 
gravest suspicions. I have given evi¬ 
dence of the falsifications of Masonry re¬ 
specting the generals of the Revolution¬ 
ary Army, the Presidents of the United 
States, and the acts of men living in our 
own time. And it is easy to believe, in 
view of all the facts of the case, that 
the position of Governor Ritner might 
be abundantly justified. 

THE FAREWELL ADDRESS. 

Whether or not Washington had Free¬ 
masonry and similar organizations in 
mind when composing his farewell ad¬ 
dress. he describes precisely the charac¬ 
ter of all such lodges in the two para¬ 
graphs which we subjoin: 

“All obstructions to the execu¬ 
tion of the laws, all combinations 
and associations, tinder whatever 
plausible character, with the real 
design to direct, control, counter¬ 
act or awe th£ regular delibera¬ 
tions and actions of the constituted 
authorities, are destructive of this 
fundamental principle [National 
Unity J and of fatal tendency. 
They serve to organize faction: 
they give it an artificial and ex¬ 
traordinary force; they put in 

45 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


place of the delegated will of the 
nation the will of the party, often 
a small but artful and enterprising 
minority of the community; and, 
according to the alternate triumphs 
of the different parties, tend to 
make the public administration the 
mirror of the ill-concerted and in¬ 
congruous projects of faction, 
rather than the organ of consistent 
and wholesome plans, digested by 
the common councils, and modified 
by mutual interests. 

“However combinations or as¬ 
sociations of the above description 
may now and then answer popular 
ends, they are likely in the course 
of time and things to become po¬ 
tent engines by which cunning, am¬ 
bitious and unprincipled men will 
be enabled to subvert the power of 
the people, and to usurp for them¬ 
selves the reins of government; de¬ 
stroying afterwards the very en¬ 
gines which have lifted them to 
unjust dominion.’’ 

That Freemasons seek to use Free¬ 
masonry to secure official positions, and 
that members of other secret societies do 
the same thing, every reasonably well- 
informed American knows perfectly 
well. Odd Fellows, Knights of Pyth¬ 
ias. Woodmen. Workmen, etc., etc., all 
are alike. Tn every little town of our 

40 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 

country you may find members of these 
orders running about among their fel¬ 
low lodgemen, trying to get themselves 
appointed to this, that or the other offi¬ 
cial position. The person who de¬ 
nies this discredits either his intelligence 
or his integrity. 

It is further known that, having se¬ 
cured official position bv means of 
lodgism, lodgemen use their official po¬ 
sitions to pay their lodge obligations, 
and to help their lodges. One hand 
washes the other. The lodges give them 
the places, and they use the places to 
h.*lp the lodges: and what is perhaps 
the meanest part of the whole transac¬ 
tion is the fact that, having secured tin* 
offices by way of the lodges, and using 
the offices to help the lodges in return, 
these secret society men put on a grave 
face and tell their neighbors and friends 
that membership in the lodges is proof 
of fitness for official position. We can 
only account for such a series of facts 
as these when we reflect that Satan, the 
-rod of this world, is the presiding deity 
in the secret societies of the world. 

But I must conclude this discussion, 
which I have not desired should he 
long, but which is warranted by the im¬ 
portance of the subject. I trust that 
our Masonic friends who have sincerely 
believed in the Freemasonry of General 
Washington, will take the pains to in- 


47 


WAS WASHINGTON A FREEMASON? 


form themselves on the subject. They 
ought to show that Hayden was mis 
taken when he said that Washington has 
no Masonic record for the first fifteen 
years after his marriage. They should 
show that the same Masonic author was 
mistaken when he declared again and 
again that there is no Masonic record 
to show Washington’s affiliation with 
the military lodges or with the Masons 
in New York or Philadelphia during 
the war, and during his service as Pres¬ 
ident of the United States. They should 
show that Governor Ritner was mistak¬ 
en as to his facts, and that there is suf¬ 
ficient reason to believe in the authen¬ 
ticity of the letters which the Masons 
affirm Washington wrote to Masonic per¬ 
sons and lodges. 

Until this is done, no man who desires 
to be considered both intelligent and 
honest, should say that Washington was 
a loyal Freemason. 



































































































